Raju vs State of Punjab

Anita Chaudhry, J.—Appellant Raju has preferred this appeal as he has been convicted u/s 376 IPC in FIR No. 102 dated 20.02.2006, registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The victim (name withheld) was a student of 7th class. She had gone to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala alongwith her mother on 20.02.2006. Both of them returned to the village at 12:30 P.M. The victim alongwith her mother Surender Kaur went to the fields to cut Barseem crop. The victim left the field and went to the toilet near the fields. Accused Raju came and put his hand on her mouth and picked her up and took her in the Kotha and raped the girl. When the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, she was silenced. The cries, however, attracted her mother Surinder Kaur who came to the spot. Surinder Kaur picked up a danda and hit the accused. The alarm raised by the prosecutrix and her mother attracted people working in the nearby fields. They caught hold of Raju and gave him a beating. Surinder Kaur informed her husband Gurmeet Singh who was working as a driver. He returned to the village. All of them alongwith a Sarpanch went to the police alongwith Raju. The police met them near Bahadurgarh where the complaint Ex. PA was made and it was reduced into writing and handed to the police. The girl was sent for her medical examination. After completing the necessary formalities, a report was laid against the accused u/s 376 IPC.

The accused was charge sheeted, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Gurmeet Singh, the prosecutrix, Surinder Kaur, the medical officers and the investigating officers.

The accused pleaded innocent and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and that of the State.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the prosecution case was full of discrepancies and according to one version the accused was caught at the spot whereas father of the girl had stated that he went and searched for him and there was also a contradiction as to where the statement was recorded. It was urged that the incident is said to have been committed in broad day light and several persons were working in the fields and the appellant would be insane to do the act and the story of the prosecution is improbable. It was urged that there was no injury to the prosecutrix and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and the accused was entitled to acquittal. It was further urged that the accused was in custody for seven and a half years and the custody certificate was on record and if no merit is found then the sentence be reduced to already undergone.

On the other hand, the Learned Addl. A.G., appearing for the State had urged that the accused was working as a labrour in a neighbour''s farm and prosecutrix or her father had no motive to falsely implicate him and the accused was caught on the spot and was handed over to the police and the FSL report supports the prosecution. It was urged that it would not be necessary that there should be injury and the girl was of tender age and the accused was able bodied and the girl could not have put up resistance.

The prosecutrix was a student of 7th class when the unfortunate incident occurred with her on 20.02.2006. The police had referred her to the radiologist for her bone test. According to the report given by Dr. Anju Bala, the prosecutrix was within the age group of 10 to 12 years. The prosecution had proved that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 15.08.1993. According to the complainant the girl was twelve and a half years old.

The victim had gone with her mother Surinder Kaur to the hospital. Gurmeet Singh, father of the prosecutrix had also accompanied them. Gurmeet Singh left his wife and daughter and had gone for his duty. The victim and her mother returned and went to the fields. The victim left the fields to go to the toilet and went to wash herself in the Chappar where she was overpowered by Raju. He put his hand on her mouth and picked up the girl and took her to the porch and removed her clothes and committed rape upon her. The girl raised alarm but the accused closed her mouth. Her mother reached the spot while accused was committing rape, she picked up a danda and hit the accused to free her daughter. On the alarm raised by the mother and daughter, several persons from nearby fields came running. The child was found bleeding. The mother called her husband who came alongwith the Sarpanch. The matter was reported to the police. The medical examination was carried out. The Medical Officers had found the following:-

Her exhilery and public hair were not present. Dress development was in early stage (her secondary sex characters were not well developed yet). Patient had not started her menses yet. On local examination, labia majora and labia minora were developed according to her age i.e. Pre-puberty age. No marks of injury was present on the Genitalia. Introitus was normal. On examining the vegina, annular hyman was present all around. There was no signs of tear or bleeding. Vegina admitted tip of the little finger with difficulty.

The report of the chemical examiner Ex. PD reads as under:-

No spermatozoa detected in the exhibits I, II & IV. Spermatozoa detected in the exhibit III".

Exhibit III was the pant of the victim.

The Medical Officer did not find any injury on the genitalia and there was no sign of tear or bleeding. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant was that the hymen was not ruptured, therefore, it could only be a case of attempt of rape. The prosecutrix was of a very tender age. The mother had noted bleeding from the private parts. It could be that there was a little penetration. The mere fact that no injury was detected on the next day would not disprove the prosecution case.

There remains no dispute with respect to the age of the prosecutrix. The parents of prosecutrix have produced the certificate Ex. PB with respect to her age. In the MLR, the age given by the mother was recorded which is twelve and half years. A radiological examination was also carried out to assess her age. The report of radiologist is Ex. PB, according to which the age of prosecutrix was between 10 and 12 years.

The prosecutrix became the victim of lust of the accused. The accused found the girl alone at a lonely place and dragged her to the porch and raped her. In a rape case, the accused can be convicted only on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. Here, the version given by the prosecutrix is also supported by medical evidence. Her statement inspires confidence. Her deposition is clear and unequivocal. The statement of the witnesses do not suffer from contradictions nor the incident can be said to be highly improbable. There is no difficulty in acting on the testimony of the victim about the sexual assault. There is no reason to reject it. The appellant was not known to the complainant''s family. He was a labourer, working in a nearby farm. There was no motive to falsely involve him. The accused was caught on the spot and was handed over to the police, the same evening. The discrepancy pointed out by the appellant is irrelevant. The victim had identified the appellant in the Court. She had no reason to falsely implicate him. There is no delay in reporting the incident. The statement of the prosecutrix is reliable and can be acted upon. There is no reason to differ with the view of the trial Court. There is no infirmity in the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is confirmed. The present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Lower Court record be sent back.